Laserfiche WebLink
Amendment. In effect, the Court found that the rate provisions <br />contained in the Pole Attachment Act of 1978 were unconstitu- <br />tional. The National Cable Television Association, Cox Cable <br />and Croup W have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review thls <br />ruling. <br />Tribune -United Cable vs. Mortgomery County - United States <br />Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Montgomery County recently <br />requested that the entire panel of Fourth Circuit Court judges <br />review a three -judge panel's interpretation of the franchise <br />modification provisions of the 1984 Cable Act. The three -judge <br />panel from the Fourth Circuit, found that a franchising <br />authority may not penalize cable operators for violation of <br />franchise agreements, before final action is taken on any re- <br />quest by the cable system for modification of the franchise <br />agreement under Section 625 of the Cable Act. In its appeal u <br />the full circuit, the County argued that the previous decision. <br />Will im.Tobilize enforcement of all cable franchises within the <br />Court's jurisdiction and elsewhere. The County also speculated <br />that the decision 'can be expected to stimulate a flood of <br />modification requests since any cable operator can now <br />automatically thwart enforcement.' <br />Erie Telecommunications, Inc. vs. City of Erie - U.S. <br />District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania. This case <br />focuses upon the City of Erie's reouirement that the winnino <br />cable system pay a suostantial fee in exchange for its <br />of <br />